About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
gathering purposes since he's been president. when we read these people their miranda rights and give them a lawyer the only way you can gather intelligence is if the terror suspect and the lawyer will allow you to do so. intelligence gathering through plea bargaining is not going to make us safe. jenna: so we spoke to a former member of the fbi on our show yesterday that seems to not have a problem with miranda rights, that is their opinion. we'll see what they get as far as information from this one suspect. >> can i mention something. jenna: please. >> i don't have a problem with miranda rights. this man can only be tried in federal court. he's never eligible for military commissions. a first year law student could convict this person. what i'm worried about is what does he know about future attacks? he's telling us that his brother was the bad guy, he's sort of just along for the ride. they had no international connections. guess what, he's down-playing his involvement. what i am suggesting is that we use the national security legal system where we can interview him without a lawyer to
federal government has done the right thing. when ints that somehow suspects have right to counsel miranda warnings causes them to stop cooperating with law enforcement is not facts and studies. and ct, d.o.j. officials senior law enforcement officials 90% of the ou 80% to time in sophisticated cases when defense counsel get involved to help emhis more and icit more information allow the case to go forward. there have been multiple cases 9/11 that have been prosecuted, investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement resulted in more information available to law lawful tools ing without needing to violate rights. senator mentioned graham. he pushed against the decision the combatant status. [video clip] >> i hope the congress will at this case and look at our laws and come to the to.lusion that i have come we are at war. for a going to be at war very long time and we have to have the tools to defend values.es within our one of those tools is the ability to question people about future attacks to gather intelligence for national purposes without benefit of counsel. the information will neve
, let me come over to you, a lot of talk about miranda. but give me a sense of what the leeway is especially in situations like this, after acts like what happened here at the marathon. >> well, it is yesterday's news. he's been given his miranda warnings and probably anything he said without his miranda warnings is not going to be needed by the government or the prosecution. remember, they did not indict him as a terrorist, that's very important. they indicted him as an ordinary murderer, anybody who wants to kill their mother-in-law, business partner and makes an improvised explosive device and kills them is just as guilty under the statute indicted as osama bin laden might be. this is not a terrorist prosecution. they don't have to prove intent to terrorize, intent to intimidate. they can prove their case just through the videotapes. now, i predict there are going to be two types of possible defenses in this case. number one, the jihad defense. i did it, i'm proud, i'm happy, please kill me, i want to join my brother in paradise. i'm a martyr. the other, my brother made me d
was provided before or after that judge/magistrate was there and r read him his miranda rights? the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney? >> sources have indicated to us that was part of a questioning that they did under the -- fbi agent does under a national security exemption, before he was assigned counsel. they had the ability in the interest of public safety exception to be able to ask questions, were there additional coconspirators, where and were there additional explosives. the source of things you want to know immediately in order to protect the public. presumably base wanted on what we are hearing, those are the questions they asked and the kinds of responses prior to the first appearance yesterday. >> that would fit in with the public safety exception in the there a in providing the miranda rights to this criminal defendant as he now is, charges have been read to him. fran, we'll stay in close touch with you, fran townsend. much more from boston in just a moment. other news that we're watching as well. the fbi, back in washington, up on capitol hill, lawmake
the miranda rights. there is a due process in a battle. it becomes more of a question into eating dinner in the house and then it's an even bigger push into eating dinner in america, in a cafÉ or in your house. that was a huge question but it works all the way back. is a spectrum, and also can go to war in molly or libya under the use of authorization of force that was done for afghanistan? i'll tell you how hard this battle will be. i tried to remove the use of force authorization of force for iraq last year. the war is over that i couldn't even stop the war that is already done. the reason why think it's important to take the use of authorization force back, that's the people's power and congress' power. it's ultimately the people's power through congress, but that power was separated and as long as we have a dangling out there, we have given carte blanche to any president to commit war anytime anywhere. and then there's the debate of whether or not they can infringe upon civil liberties here at home through that force. so no, i don't think we can completely get rid of it. i think wha
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)